Non Essential Government Services

If Congress doesn’t agree on last year’s spending and doesn’t pass a continuing resolution, the government will be forced to “shut down”.   I have to ask myself, “Is that such a bad thing?”

What is a shutdown?  Nobody really knows but we’re told that Social Security checks will still be sent and that the armed forces will still protect us (and about 90% of everyone else on the planet.)  The only thing that we’re told is that the “non essential government services will be closed and those people will be put on administrative leave.”

Since that’s all the information at hand, I’m going to make some observations and suggestions that may be all wet in light of the complete picture, but I think it’s a start when we think of what this might mean.

The first question that comes to mind is, “Will we get back the $105 Billion that Democrats inappropriately snuck into ObamaCare when they passed it?  It was an authorization bill but they made it into an appropriations bill with nobody but the sneaks who did it knowing about it.  I’m not sure in which of the 2,400 pages of the bill the appropriation is, but it’s there and we want the money back!  Pronto!

Am I surprised they did that?  No, not really.  A former pastor of mine said, “We should never be surprised when sinners act like sinners.”  Without trying to equivocate, I just want to paraphrase and say that we should never be surprised when free-spending liberals act like we have all the money in the world and act according to their true nature.

After recovering from the angst of Dems acting like Dems, I have to ask, “If we shut down non essential services, how will that affect our lives?”  If they’re not essential, I have to think that the answer is, “Not much.”

Next I ask, “If we shout down the non essential services, how much will that save?”  Again, I have to think the answer is, “Not much,” since the meaning of “essential” is left to the operating units themselves.  Some how every bureaucrat will deem himself or herself “essential”.

Let’s shut down the government until Democrats start acting like responsible adults and not like the spoiled rich kids that they are.  I don’t think we’ll see any real difference.  The roads will still have potholes and bridges will be crumbling because Congress raided the Highway Trust Fund in years past.

There are dozens of ways that Congress can get us back on the road to fiscal health, not the least of which is to let private people pay for Harry Reid’s Cowboy Poetry Festival.

Let’s take everyone’s ideas and do them all. Assuming, of course that they’re Constitutional.

Add Insult to Tax Injury

When Obama took office, one of the first things he did was to announce a pay freeze for all White House employees making more than $100,000 per year.  However we found out last fall that even with that pay freeze 74% of the over 300 White House staff got on-average a 9% pay raise and the number of federal employees making more than $150,000/year has doubled under this administration.  I’m not saying they aren’t worth it (OK, maybe I would say it if I knew just what these people did other than kiss butt and shine shoes) but how much disdain for the suffering of millions of American citizens does this show?

You do know, don’t you, that your unemployment payments are taxable as wages, so your unemployment benefits help pay these possibly overpaid folks.  Even with falling new unemployment claims, more than 9% of us (seasonably adjusted, of course) are out of work.  Another 20% are underemployed with cut hours or only holding temporary or part-time jobs, and untold numbers have simply given up looking.  Yet Obama has increased the number of federal workers making over $150,000 twenty-fold and gives his staff a 9% pay raise.  Even if you are employed, did you get a 9% pay raise last year?  Are you even making 9% more than you were two years ago?

In so many ways, Obama’s domestic policies are like vampires sucking the life out of the economy step by step.  These policies punish producers, make the business climate too uncertain so that potential employers are not sure what his policies will to to them.  They could hire people but then if ObamaCare slaps punitive expenses on their businesses, they’ll have to lay people off just to keep even.  And, by the way, when an employer lays people off, his unemployment insurance premiums rise, which punishes him even more for having tried to give some folks jobs.

I encourage the Republican-controlled House to implement sound policies that are economic-growth friendly.

I hope the Debt Commission and Congress are watching. Roll back federal pay to the 2008 level and eliminate automatic pay raises through the Cost of Living Adjustments.  Those of us who don’t suckle at the teat of the federal government don’t get those kind of automatic pay raises.  If federal employees don’t like it, they can do what the rest of us do.  They can quit and try to get a real job in the private sector.

Nevertheless, let’s go back to the topic of this entry.  If there wasn’t a pay freeze, how much would these people have gotten?  Where can I apply for one of these jobs?  Sounds like “all animals are created equal.  It’s just that some are more equal than others,” to borrow from George Orwell.

I’m sick and tired of Health Care Reform

Health Care Reform is the one of the Obama agenda items that seems to be on the list of why so many Democrats were fired in the last election.  Republicans now want to take advantage of that now.  The question that people ask is, “Why do we need reform?”  The simple answer is, “Health care is too expensive.”  This then begs the question, “So, what’s wrong with ObamaCare?”  To which one reply is, “It rations health care with no guarantee of improvement.”  Simple questions with simple responses.

But the true answer is really more complex.  It’s too expensive partly because government has made it too expensive.  Let me explain with one of many examples.

Way back when, the people thought health care costs were getting out of  control.  The solution presented by the socialists was to create HMOs.  Everyone goes in the pool at the same (or relatively the same based on parameters) cost and HMOs decide what you need to stay alive and you get that treatment.  Costs were kept down but the (unintended?) consequence was that now health care became rationed.  A triage nurse or administrator decided if you could see a doctor and what kind of doctor (probably a nurse or physician’s assistant) you’d see.  The HMO determined what treatment options they’d make available and there could be a waiting list.  To lower costs, the government created a method of rationing run by the private sector.  It was reminiscent of ration coupons during World War II.

ObamaCare is HMO times infinity.  Like any government program, it would cost orders of magnitude more than the politicians say it will and, like social security, welfare, and other programs, will bankrupt the government as entitlements grow out of control.

Now, I won’t tackle the constitutionality of government-controlled health care with its mandates on what you must buy.  About 25 states are willing to do that better than I could.  I only want to address one issue, the cost of health care.

There are a whole host of reasons why health care is so expensive so I’ll just touch on a few of them.  Rather than forcing the citizenry to be shackled to the Federal yolk, these areas are places that government can address if it’s serious about reigning in health care costs.

The cost of medical school and specialized education is significant.  Four years of college, four of medical school, residency (where you’re paid enough just to keep you almost from starving), and further education for specialization can leave a doctor a half million dollars or more in debt before he or she can start a practice.  It, along with its interest, must be paid back one way or another and that is through the doctor’s salary.  It’s not uncommon for a doctor to have to pay tens of thousands per year to pay off education debt.  If we want reform, let’s at least make the interest tax deductible and lower what the doctor needs to be paid.

Forget the rent in New York City.  The cost of malpractice insurance is too darn high.  Why?  Because we are a litigious society.  If a patient dies because of the operation, that can be malpractice.  If the patient dies in spite of the operation, that is not.  It is proper to sue if the doctor has done something wrong.  It is not proper if you simply don’t like the outcome of a properly-performed procedure.  You, your parent or guardian, made an informed decision.  If it doesn’t come out as you hoped, that’s unfortunate and, sadly, too many judges don’t have the guts to throw out frivolous lawsuits.  We need to take a tighter look at who is suing for what.  There should also be caps on things like “pain and suffering” when your nose job doesn’t make you look like a superstar.  In short, we need massive tort reform.  Let’s hope that Congress has fewer trial lawyers this go-around and can do something here.

Because of the threat of malpractice, doctors are forced to perform CYA tests and procedures.  Everyone wants an MRI for a hangnail.  People go in to the doctor and demand that they prescribe that new medicine they saw on TV.

There are other reasons, too.  Costs to create new drugs, hospital expenses and medical equipment are all factors as well.  The net, however, is not to grab control of the industry.

Don’t get me wrong.  There are some good provisions buried somewhere deep in the ObamaCare bill.  Those should be culled out, debated and, if truly beneficial to the American people and not just to lawyers or other special interests, passed as separate bills once the overall bill is repealed.

There are reasonable things that we can do to get health costs under control.  Rationing and socialism are not among them, however.  Let’s get rid of this fiasco and debate features we can understand.

Sauce for the Goose

You probably know the saying, “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.”  It flies in the face of double standards.  It says that if you can do something, so can I.  Conversely, if some consequence for bad behavior for you is fitting, then the same consequence is fitting for me if I do the same thing.  Everybody plays by the same rules.  It’s the antithesis of means testing. Let’s look at this with a bit of retrospective regarding last year’s failed Swine Flu (H1N1) pandemic.  Please don’t get me wrong.  My heart goes out to all the families who lost loved ones due to the disease.  My criticism is with its handling.

States do means testing for their benefits and tax policies.  Hospitals do means testing for how much they charge their patients.  Rich patients or those with insurance pay more than poor patients with no insurance.  State-run clinics means test for how much patients pay for their services.  Means testing determines Medicare coverage.  Means testing determines how much of your Social Security income is taxed.  Means testing is a way to regulate the supply or cost of a good or service by manipulating the price paid by the consumer.

Businesses don’t do means testing but they do practice supply and demand.  The price of oil goes up therefore making gas more expensive.  Some people modify their driving habits to use less gas and thus not spend as much.  If things cost more then either you spend more or you cut down on your consumption.

Means testing is as well ingrained in the health care industry as supply and demand is in the rest of the capitalist system.  So why are states upset when pharmacies vary their charges for Swine Flu or other vaccines?  Some claim price gouging such as what happens when stores jack up the price of water after a hurricane cripples the water supply of a town or region.

The problem? There were claims this last flu season that the varying cost of Swine Flu vaccine from state to state and within a state, sometimes by as much as $75 across the state, was price gouging.  Ignore the fact that some pharmacies have to mix their own formula for children’s doses (ever hear of increased labor costs?  Ever hear of malpractice insurance?  Someone has to pay for them to take the risk of mixing the vaccine themselves.)  Ignore the fact that the vaccine itself was in short supply in some places.  One place charged $49 and another charged over $90 for the same dose.  Often these were in the same area and it was relatively easy to get from one place to another.

The solution?  Chris Dodd, retiring Democrat Senator from Connecticut, wanted a government investigation and the Mississippi State Attorney wanted people to report any price gouging they found.  Of course this begs a very important question.  What is price gouging here?  If the drug store I visit charges $90 I should report them, right?  Forget the fact that I can go to another pharmacy across town and pay only $49.  The government needs to do something for me because I’m too lazy to shop around!  His committee investigation should have its results about a year and a half after the Swine flu has long subsided and the next flu season that’s coming kicks in so don’t hold your breath for meaningful results.  Perhaps they’ll have something before the next manufactured “crisis”.

I don’t know what Dodd’s committee intends to accomplish.  Maybe he’s jealous over the competition for medical care dollars.  Maybe he’s looking for ways to get pointers on how to ration health care under the guise of caring what happens to you.  Maybe it’s good that he’s retiring.

I don’t see how the variation in prices for H1N1 vaccine was price gouging but then again, I’m not a government hack, so what do I know?  It’s supply and demand.  You want what I have, here’s the price.  If enough people refuse to pay the price and go somewhere else, maybe I’ll consider lowering my price before the vaccine I’m holding goes bad or isn’t needed.

Don’t like the price, maybe WalMart has a better price.  Not everyone advertises “Always low prices … Always” (or at least used to.)  Use your phone and call around.  By the way, at what price is it gouging?  Who sets the standard?  Maybe we need to fix the price and be done with it.  Hmmm… Sounds like socialized medicine is one more step closer.  The current year’s flu vaccine is currently about $25 at my local food store pharmacies.

What do you think ObamaCare will do?  Means testing is the centerpiece of government programs.  Government bureaucrats, not your doctor, will regulate how much health care you can get.  They will limit the supply regardless of the demand.  They will limit it depending on your income, age, and current health.  Ignore the fact that health care is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution as a federal responsibility.  They will control your access to health care and you will lose your freedom of choice about it.  Get used to it.  It’s coming.

People look to the UK for the model of government- run health care.  The claim is that it is second to none, and it is … when you can get it.  The trick over there is convincing the government that you truly are worthy of being treated for your ailment.  The same will be true here.

Socialized medicine only works when the government has enough of your money to spend freely.  As the amount of your money decreases, so does the quality of the health care they’ll allow you to receive.

I can hear the campaign slogans in the New World Order: Want a vaccine?  Then vote for me!  I’ll make sure you get it or die trying.

Their Fair Share

I stopped to get gas when I was on my way home today.  As I was filling up my tank, I saw a Prius and two other hybrid vehicles drive by.  I started thinking about the all-electric cars coming and asked myself a question: Are they paying their “fair share”?  That’s only natural to ask that, I suppose.  After all it is the election season.

“Their fair share of what?” you may ask.  Their fair share of the taxes that build and maintain the roads upon which we drive.

I believe Congress and state Legislators suffer from some kind of group multiple personality disorder.  On the one hand, they mandate ever higher gas mileage averages for the auto makers.  Then they turn around and steal (they call it “reallocating”) money from highway trust funds for purposes other than building or maintaining highways for those vehicles.  In the vernacular, I believe we call this being “schizo”.

Higher mileage means you buy less gas.  Less gas sold means less gas tax money.  Less gas tax money means reduced highway funds (or what’s left of them).  Reduced highway funds means construction, maintenance and safety suffer.  I don’t know many people (other than politicians) who think this is a good way to maintain roads.

It gets even worse with electric cars coming out.  Let’s say I buy an all-electric car that I can charge up in my garage.  How much gas will I need?  Zero.  How much highway gas tax money will I “contribute”?  Zero.  Not only that, I would also get (if it hasn’t expired) a tax credit!  At least the hybrids use some gas and pay some tax.

I don’t think it will be long before the legislative “powers that be” wake up to this fact and start getting back some of that tax credit money they gave you to buy those more expensive cars.  They’ll get it back by giving you some kind of a “non-gasoline tax”.  You’ll probably pay it along with your auto registration or with your vehicle inspection.  Hybrid taxes will be lower than all electric vehicles because they do pay some fuel taxes (but not “enough”, I’m sure).

Don’t worry, they’ll come up with some fancy name like “alternative fuel highway reconciliation usage fee for the children”.  They will call it a “usage fee” and not a tax and it will be “for the children” so it will be OK, I’m sure.  It probably will come out to be so many cents per mile per year based on your odometer readings.  Like all taxes it will start small.  Nevertheless, once they get the taste of that new tax in their collective mouths, there will be a feeding frenzy so fierce that the Discovery Channel will have to preempt Shark Week for it.

To be sure the died-in-the-wool tree hugger will whine and moan that they shouldn’t have to pay this “fee”.  After all, aren’t they saving the world by not burning fossil fuels?  Well, maybe they’re not burning them but the power plant that generates their electricity is burning them or creating radioactive waste for them.  It doesn’t fly.  If you use the roads, somebody has to pay for them.

Don’t get me wrong.  Unless we privatize all roads (an ultra Libertarian view, I believe), and as long as Congress has the Constitutional requirement to regulate interstate commerce, governments will build and maintain roads.  The question will be how to fund it.

I’m not opposed to usage fees, including those to use our roads.  In a way, the gas tax is one form of that.  The more I use the roads, the more gas I use and the more tax I pay.  It’s progressive in that poorer performing cars pay a higher tax because they burn more fuel.  The crime is that we pay for roads but they’re not maintained well and bridges fall.

The question will be how to balance electric non-gas vehicle usage with the more traditional usage.  Maybe we abolish the gas tax and implement a straight forward mileage charge.  Chances are, though, that Congress will impose both.